Beto: Americans Will Comply with My Gun Confiscation Plan

Democratic 2020 hopeful Beto O’Rourke says police wont be needed to go “door to door” to confiscate firearms from citizens as Americans will comply with his mandatory gun buyback plans and surrender their weapons voluntarily.

Speaking to a reporter in New Hampshire over the weekend, Beto claimed law enforcement would not be needed to confiscate Americans’ guns because people would willingly comply with the law.

“I don’t see the law enforcement going door to door,” Beto told the Washington Examiner.

“I see Americans complying with the law.”

“I see us working with gun owners, non-gun owners, local, county, state, federal law enforcement to come up with the best possible solution,” he continued.

“I have yet to meet an owner of an AR-15 who thinks it’s OK that we have these kind of mass killings in this country.”

Dailycaller.com reports: He was also quoted as saying, “How do you — how do we enforce any law? There’s a significant reliance on people complying with the law. You know that a law is not created in a vacuum.”

The Texas politician has repeatedly signaled his support for mandatory gun confiscation by the government.

O’Rourke confirmed his plan for mandatory confiscation last week.

“I was asked how I’d address people’s fears that we will take away their assault rifles. I want to be clear: That’s exactly what we’re going to do,” he said in a tweet.

“Americans who own AR-15s and AK-47s will have to sell their assault weapons. All of them.”

O’Rourke qualified for this week’s Democratic debate, however, he remains low in the polls. According to RealClearPolitics, he only has 2.3 percent support in the primary race for the Democratic nomination.

The former Texas congressman has attempted to make fighting against gun violence one of his signature issues following two mass shootings in Texas this summer.

NRA Sues San Fransisco over Ridiculous Terrorist Declaration

The National Rifle Association (NRA) sued San Fransisco on Monday over the city’s recent decision to label the gun-rights group as a “domestic terrorist organization.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses city of officials of violating the NRA’s free speech rights for political reasons and says the city is seeking to blacklist anyone associated with the gun lobby.

The NRA has asked the court to step in “to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree.”

Ktvu.com reports: Last week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution calling the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization,” contending the NRA spreads propaganda that seeks to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence.

“This action is an assault on all advocacy organizations across the country,” said William A. Brewer III, the NRA’s lawyer. “There can be no place in our society for this manner of behavior by government officials. Fortunately, the NRA, like all U.S. citizens, is protected by the First Amendment.”

San Francisco’s resolution follows some recent high-profile shootings, including one in Gilroy, California, about 80 miles (129 kilometers) southeast of San Francisco, where a gunman entered a festival with an AK-style long gun, killing three people and injuring 17 before killing himself. Since that shooting on July 28, there have been at least three mass shootings — in El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; and in the West Texas towns of Odessa and Midland.

San Francisco Supervisor Catherine Stefani said she drafted the resolution after the Gilroy shooting, driven in part by the vision of one of those killed while playing in a bouncy house at the festival. Stefani, an attorney who has been involved for years in gun-control organizations, said the thought sickened her. “I had enough,” she told The Associated Press.

“They continue to stand in the way of gun violence reform and people are dying because of it,” she said.

She also criticized NRA leadership for how it spends dues from its self-proclaimed 5 million members — a sore point among some gun-rights activists as well who believe its longtime CEO, Wayne LaPierre, and some of those in his inner circle have misspent hundreds of thousands of dollars on such things as expensive clothing, travel, housing and inflated salaries.

Stefani told the AP that she believes the lawsuit is a “desperate move by a very desperate organization,” taking note of those allegations by some NRA members. “I truly believe their time is up.”

The NRA has been battling a number of challenges to its operations in recent months, including an investigation by the attorney general in New York, where its charter was formed, and the attorney general in Washington, D.C., where authorities are questioning whether its operations are in violation of its non-profit status. There also have been internal battles over NRA leadership with the group’s then-president, Oliver North, and its top lobbyist, Chris Cox, stepping down, giving gun-rights activists pause about the NRA’s ability to hold sway in the upcoming 2020 presidential elections.

Democrat leaders in Congress on Monday urged President Donald Trump, a favorite of the NRA, to push Republicans to agree to expand background checks, and there have been efforts to make it easier to seize firearms at least temporarily from people who are exhibiting mental health issues.

LaPierre, NRA’s CEO, vowed to fight the move by city officials saying in a statement: “This lawsuit comes with a message to those who attack the NRA: We will never stop fighting for our law-abiding members and their constitutional freedoms. Some politicians forget that all 5 million of us in the NRA stand for freedom and that we believe it is a cause worth fighting for. We will always confront illegal and discriminatory practices against our organization and the millions of members we serve.”

The move by city officials has received some pushback from those who believe it amounts to “virtue signaling.” An editorial in the Los Angeles Times written by Michael McGough argued that although the NRA should be criticized for blocking efforts to stem gun violence, it’s not accurate to label it a “domestic terrorist organization.”

“Police shootings and gun violence understandably inspire strong emotions, and elected officials are no exception. But they need to watch their words, especially when those words are contained in legislation or, in this case, pseudo-legislation,” McGough wrote.

The San Francisco resolution also follows moves by corporate America in recent years to cut ties with the NRA and its membership — from Delta Airlines ceasing discounts for NRA members to last week’s moves by Walmart, CVS, Walgreens and Albertsons chains all asking customers to not openly carry firearms into their stores.

Late on Monday the San Francisco city attorney’s office issued a statement regarding the lawsuit:

“It’s unfortunate the NRA would rather run to court than do something about the epidemic of gun violence in our country. The American people would be better served if the NRA stopped trying to get weapons of war into our communities and instead actually did something about gun safety. Common-sense safety measures like universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and restricting high-capacity magazines would be a good start.”

Good on you Tif, I've got a simple one that I can have without ID or gun licence. Looks the part if I need to scare someone away. The guy at the gun shop told me it's the type that can be modified if I choose to get a gun licence at later date.